Who is Belial?

[Jesus_is_Saint]

2 Cor, 6:

15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?


Who is Belial?

 

[Kevin Ambrose]

Belial means "worthlessness" in Hebrew I believe. Through the Ages he has become somewhat synonymous with the Devil. Some occultic traditions say he was the second Angel to fall from heaven and translate his name to mean "without a master."

But ultimately Belial is a demonic figure like Moloch or Ba'al. I imagine the verse was simply comparing white to black. Christ to Belial. Believer to non-believer.

 

[Kevin Ambrose]

I will also note that in the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a battle described between Archangel Michael and Belial, both leading their respective forces.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Belial is just a personification of worthlessness. It was not a demon originally (Some Second Temple texts however began to treat Belial as one, as already noted above).

For instance the sons of Eli are called 'sons of Belial', which nowadays is just translated as 'were worthless'.

It is similar to how we can say someone is a tribute to Lady Liberty - meaning to the USA, or that "Justice dropped her scales and wept". It is poetic.

 

[Norbert L]

Belial is just a personification of worthlessness. It was not a demon originally (Some Second Temple texts however began to treat Belial as one, as already noted above).

For instance the sons of Eli are called 'sons of Belial', which nowadays is just translated as 'were worthless'.

It is similar to how we can say someone is a tribute to Lady Liberty - meaning to the USA, or that "Justice dropped her scales and wept". It is poetic.

You're not meaning that Paul was using the name Belial in a poetic sense, are you?

I don't read very much being discussed on the theology that was present during the second temple period on these forums.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You're not meaning that Paul was using the name Belial in a poetic sense, are you?

I don't read very much being discussed on the theology that was present during the second temple period on these forums.

I do indeed. Belial is used 27 times in the OT for a wide range of people, from Eli's sons to Jezebel's compatriots to Rehoboam's advisers. Each clearly means a idiomatic use of 'being worthless' which anyway fits Semitic language usage where idioms 'son of' followed by a personification are common.

The Rabbinical authorities and Talmud interpret Belial as idiomatic and non-supernatural.
The Septuagint itself often translates this as 'worthlessness' straight, avoiding personal names, so they were clearly aware of its idiomatic usage.

Paul, a Pharisee taught under Gamaliel, would obviously also have meant it in its idiomatic use, as is confirmed by the next line speaking of unbelievers. It was the more esoteric sects of Judaism that transformed Belial into a demon, not Phariseedom.

 

[Norbert L]

It was the more esoteric sects of Judaism that transformed Belial into a demon, not Phariseedom.

You mean like those who hid the Dead Sea Scrolls? The wiki references a couple of texts, one of which refers to Belial as one of the watchers. Something which is found in the book of Enoch and is cited in the NT if I'm not mistaken.

We don't get too much discussion on what is known about second temple theology.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You mean like those who hid the Dead Sea Scrolls? The wiki references a couple of texts, one of which refers to Belial as one of the watchers. Something which is found in the book of Enoch and is cited in the NT if I'm not mistaken.

We don't get too much discussion on what is known about second temple theology.

Enoch is cited once in Jude, yes. However, Enoch never mentions Belial nor does it mean that there was a belief in such a demon in early Christianity because some sectarian and non-canon works mention it.

Paul was a good Pharisee, a Pharisee of Pharisees in his words. Pharisees did not interpret OT references to Belial in this light, nor did the Rabbinical successors of the Pharisees, so I think it almost certain to refer to the idiomatic expression found elsewhere in the OT, especcially in light of the next verse.

 

[Norbert L]

Enoch is cited once in Jude, yes. However, Enoch never mentions Belial nor does it mean that there was a belief in such a demon in early Christianity because some sectarian and non-canon works mention it.

Paul was a good Pharisee, a Pharisee of Pharisees in his words. Pharisees did not interpret OT references to Belial in this light, nor did the Rabbinical successors of the Pharisees, so I think it almost certain to refer to the idiomatic expression found elsewhere in the OT, especcially in light of the next verse.

I believe second temple theology is a large and rather unexplored area for most people like us. It's not as if we dig through all the accredited scholarly journals with their varying views to see what's being said about the subject.

I'm not totally convinced of your conclusions because I don't have enough knowledge about the subject. The knowledge I have come across lends itself to the understanding that when Paul wrote Belial, he was talking about someone and not in the poetic sense.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I believe second temple theology is a large and rather unexplored area for most people like us. It's not as if we dig through all the accredited scholarly journals with their varying views to see what's being said about the subject.

I'm not totally convinced of your conclusions because I don't have enough knowledge about the subject. The knowledge I have come across lends itself to the understanding that when Paul wrote Belial, he was talking about someone and not in the poetic sense.

It is always good to question and look at other evidence also. For interest's sake, what source are you referring to that suggests Paul meant a being here?

 

[Jesus_is_Saint]

So, who is Belial?

 

[Norbert L]

It is always good to question and look at other evidence also. For interest's sake, what source are you referring to that suggests Paul meant a being here?

You could read through this. http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Belial-Mastema-Satan-Devil-DNTB.pdf
Dr. Michael Heiser seems to specialize in this area, the cultural backdrop and beliefs of society during the times that the writers of scripture were living.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You could read through this. http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Belial-Mastema-Satan-Devil-DNTB.pdf
Dr. Michael Heiser seems to specialize in this area, the cultural backdrop and beliefs of society during the times that the writers of scripture were living.

This in no way suggests Paul meant a demonic being here. He is again referencing the Qumran texts, Jubilees etc. and other such more esoteric texts. None of these fall within the 22 - 24 book canon of the Pharisees as recorded in the Sanhedrin records, Talmud and Josephus.

There were obviously Jews that interpreted OT Belial referencing as being a demon, but I see no reason to think Pharisees did so. In fact, based on the context of the NT verse and later Rabbinical usage of 'Belial' being exclusively idiomatic, I still think it highly likely Paul was speaking idiomatically as well.

 

[Norbert L]

This in no way suggests Paul meant a demonic being here. He is again referencing the Qumran texts, Jubilees etc. and other such more esoteric texts. None of these fall within the 22 - 24 book canon of the Pharisees as recorded in the Sanhedrin records, Talmud and Josephus.

There were obviously Jews that interpreted OT Belial referencing as being a demon, but I see no reason to think Pharisees did so. In fact, based on the context of the NT verse and later Rabbinical usage of 'Belial' being exclusively idiomatic, I still think it highly likely Paul was speaking idiomatically as well.

The article leaves me with the impression that he talks about the subject fairly, acknowledging both types of uses during that time. But just to digress for one moment.

I think a number of Christians have wondered and thought about the question, how do historical monotheistic Rabbis readily accept the trinitarian expressions made throughout the Gospels and NOT just kick Jesus and the disciples out of the temple and synagogues for heresy? I believe that 2nd temple theology is either not very well understood or it is of little interest in popular Christian teaching nowadays.

I also believe during that time, it had its' own versions of contenting doctrines much like our present ‎Postmillennialism · ‎Amillennialism · ‎Premillennialism schools of debate. It's no easy project to come 100% certain conclusions about how Paul is talking about Belial.

I would say there is a probability that Paul could have been writing about Belial as an individual and not just as a concept of worthlessness.